Tunnels  or  Bridges? 


The  Problem  of  Transportation 
Across  the  East  River 


PRUDENTIAL  INS.  CO.  OF  AMERICA 

N  EWARK,  N.J. 
STATISTICIAN'S  DEPARTMENT 

Section  

Subject  

Date  %ecd.  

Acknowledged  

Indexed  


20414 


IEx  ICtbrtfi 


SEYMOUR  DURST 


-t '  'Tort  nieiuv  ^Am^le-rda-m  oj>  Je  Manhatarus 


FORT    NEW  AMSTERDAM. 


"When  you  leave,  please  leave  this  book 

Because  it  has  been  said 
"Sver'thing  comes  t'  him  who  waits 

Except  a  loaned  book." 


Avery  Architectural  and  Fine  Arts  Library 
Gift  of  Seymour  B.  Durst  Old  York  Library 


TUNNELS  or  BRIDGES; 


BEING  A  COMMUNICATION 


TO  THE 


Board  of  Estimate  and  Apportionment 


FROM 


Hon.  BIRD  S.  COLER, 

COMPTROLLER 

OF 

THE  CITY  OF  NEW  YORK 

OX  THE 

Subject  of  transportation  across  the  East  River,  with  reports  favoring 
and  opposing  the  views  therein  set  forth  by 

William  Barclay  Parsons,   Jacobs  &  Davies,    R.  S.  Buck, 
C.  C.  Marttn  and  Samuel  R.  Probasco 


New  York : 

MARTIN  B.  BROWN  CO.,  PRINTERS  AND  STATIONERS, 
Nos,  49  to  57  Park  Place. 

1899. 


City  of  New  York — Department  of  Finance,  ' 
Office  of  the  Comptroller, 

December  4,  1899. 

To  the  Board  of  Estimate  and  Apportionment : 

Gentlemen — On  November  29,  1899, the  Board  of  Public 
Improvements  approved  sketch  plans  of  two  bridges  to  be  con- 
structed across  the  East  river,  between  the  Borough  of  Manhat- 
tan and  the  boroughs  of  Brooklyn  and  Queens,  respectively. 
The  estimated  cost  of  these  two  bridges  is  $28,382,100. 

The  Board  of  Estimate  and  Apportionment  has  been 
requested  by  the  Department  of  Bridges  to  authorize  the  issue 
of  bonds  to  the  amount  of  $1,000,000  to  provide  for  the  con- 
struction of  foundations  for  the  piers.  It  is  manifest  that 
the  expenditure  of  even  this  comparatively  small  initial  outlay 
will  commit  the  City  irrevocably  to  the  whole  of  the  cost  con- 
templated. 

I  urge  the  Board  of  Estimate  and  Apportionment  not  to 
take  immediate  action  on  this  request  for  two  reasons :  first, 
because  the  application  is  premature  and  no  real  saving  of  time 
can  be  gained  by  acting  thereon  at  this  meeting :  and,  secondly, 
because  I  believe  that  a  much  speedier,  better,  more  economical 
and  more  efficacious  method  exists  for  solving  the  problem  of 
intercommunication  between  the  several  boroughs  of  the  City 
than  by  the  building  of  these  bridges. 

The  plans  approved  by  the  Board  of  Public  Improvements 
on  November  29  were  mere  sketches  showing  only  the  height 


4 


and  direction  of  the  bridges.  Their  sole  purpose,  as  explained 
by  the  Commissioner  of  Bridges  at  that  meeting,  was  to  secure 
the  official  approval  of  that  Board  on  these  two  points,  so  that 
in  turn  the  approval  of  the  Secretary  of  War  could  be  obtained 
on  these  preliminary  features,  which  alone  interest  his  Depart- 
ment. Until  the  approval  of  the  Secretary  of  War  is  obtained 
it  would  be  useless  to  submit  detailed  plans  and  drawings, 
since  any  change  as  to  height  or  location  of  piers  insisted  on 
by  that  official  might  render  them  valueless. 

Even,  therefore,  if  the  $1,000,000  requested  by  the  Bridge 
Commissioner  were  immediately  available,  nothing  could  be 
done  until  the  approval  of  the  Secretary  of  War  had  been 
obtained,  the  detailed  plans  and  drawings  prepared  by  the 
•  Department  of  Bridges  and  approved  by  the  Board  of  Public 
Improvements,  and  the  necessary  ordinance  passed  by  the 
Municipal  Assembly. 

I  have  referred  to  these  facts  merely  for  the  purpose  of 
showing  that  in  any  event,  and  even  if  the  Board  of  Estimate 
and  Apportionment  should  ultimately  disagree  with  the  argu- 
ments I  am  about  to  present,  there  is  absolutely  nothing  to  be 
gained  and  no  time  to  be  saved  by  hasty  and  immediate  action 
on  the  request  of  the  Commissioner  of  Bridges. 

My  main  reason  in  presenting  this  report,  however,  is  to 
lay  before  the  Board  certain  questions  of  the  utmost  imporr 
tance,  which,  so  far  as  I  know,  have  never  received  the 
slightest  consideration  by  any  public  officer,  and  upon  the 
correct  solution  of  which  the  future  development  of  the  city 
depends  in  greater  degree  than  in  the  case  of  any  matter  ever 
presented  to  this  Board  for  determination. 

The  necessity  for  better  means  of  intercommunication 
between  these  boroughs  is  no  longer  a  matter  open  to  argu- 


5 


ment.  It  is  admitted  by  practically  every  one,  and  has  been 
advocated  by  none  more  strenuously  than  by  your  subscriber. 
It  is  by  no  means  certain,  however,  that  this  problem  can  be 
solved  in  the  most  economical  or  efficacious  manner  by  the 
building  of  bridges.  Their  cost  is  extremely  great.  If  past 
experience  be  taken  as  a  guide,  the  cost  of  these  two  bridges 
will,  in  all  probability,  largely  exceed  the  estimate  furnished 
by  the  Department  of  Bridges.  But  assuming  that  this  esti- 
mate will  not  be  exceeded,  it  is,  nevertheless,  proposed  to  enter 
at  once  into  an  outlay  nearly  as  great  as  that  required  for  the 
construction  of  the  Rapid  Transit  road  throughout  the  entire 
length  of  the  Borough  of  Manhattan,  which  has  now  become 
possible,  after  eight  years  of  preparation  and  two  votes  of  the 
people,  only  by  the  adoption  of  an  amendment  to  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  State.  As  a  matter  of  course,  the  delays  inci- 
dental to  the  Rapid  Transit  problem  in  the  boroughs  of  Man- 
hattan and  The  Bronx  constitute  no  reason  why  the  bettering 
of  transit  facilities  across  the  East  river  should  be  similarly 
delayed.  On  the  contrary,  this  experience  only  admonishes 
the  necessity  for  much  prompter  action.  It  would  be  extremely 
unfortunate,  however,  if,  in  the  desire  to  expedite  these 
improvements,  the  City  should  become  committed  to  an 
enormously  expensive  plan  which  future  experience  should 
prove  to  be  erroneous,  wasteful  and  inefficacious. 

The  advantages  of  tunnel  building  over  bridge  building 
have  never  been  officially  considered  by  any  board  or  depart- 
ment of  the  City  Government,  and  the  general  public  is,  I 
believe,  wholly  uninformed  as  to  the  extent  to  which  the  former 
has  supplanted  the  latter  in  England  as  a  means  of  crossing 
navigable  streams.  Only  the  few  who  have  actually  traveled 
in  the  tunnels  under  the  Thames  and  the  Mersey  realize  the 


6 


enormous  advantages  of  this  means  of  transportation.  To 
cite  an  example  nearer  home,  however — at  our  doors,  in  fact — 
it  will  doubtless  surprise  most  people  to  learn  that  the  tunnel 
under  the  East  river  constructed  by  the  East  River  Gas  Com- 
pany, is  ten  and  a  half  feet  in  diameter,  which  is  four  inches 
more  than  that  of  the  City  and  South  London  tunnel  now  in 
daily  use  for  transportation  purposes  in  the  City  of  London. 
The  East  River  Gas  tunnel,  besides  holding  the  large  mains 
of  that  company,  contains  a  railroad  track  regularly  used  by 
freight  cars.  This  tunnel  could  be  duplicated  to-day  for  con- 
siderably less  than  $500,000,  or,  say,  between  $800,000  and 
$900,000  for  two  such  tunnels,  one  for  east-bound  and  one  for 
Avest-bound  trains. 

The  Long  Island  Railway  Company  has  recently  made 
application  for  permission  to  construct,  at  its  own  expense,  for 
general  railway  purposes,  a  tunnel  under  the  East  river. 
Owing  to  its  great  length,  especially  in  the  Borough-  of  Brook- 
lyn, a  comparison  cannot  fairly  be  made  between  its  cost  and 
the  cost  of  either  tunnels  or  bridges  which  merely  serve  to 
connect  the  river-fronts  of  the  two  boroughs.  Nevertheless, 
the  cost  of  this  tunnel  throughout  its  entire  length  will  only 
be  between  five  and  six  millions  of  dollars.  This  is  about  one- 
third  of  the  cost  of  one  of  the  proposed  bridges. 

The  comparative  cost  of  construction,  however,  while 
extremely  important,  is  only  one  of  the  questions  to  be  con- 
sidered.   Others  are  as  follows : 

Tunnels  can  be  constructed  much  quicker  than  bridges.  In 
the  actual  work  of  constructing  the  East  River  Gas  tunnel  it 
was  found  possible  to  advance  100  feet  per  week.  At  this 
rate,  working  from  both  ends,  it  would  be  possible  to  construct 
one  mile  of  tunnel  in  six  months.    Assuming,  however,  that 


7 


this  high  speed  could  not  always  be  maintained,  and  making 
due  allowances  for  unforeseen  obstacles,  it  seems  reasonably 
certain  that  a  tunnel  between  Manhattan  and  Brooklyn  or  Man- 
hattan and  Queens  could  be  ready  for  operation  within  two 
years  from  the  letting  of  the  contract.  It  is  not  likely  that  a 
bridge  could  be  constructed  in  twice  that  time. 

The  physical  advantages  of  tunnels  over  bridges  for  rail- 
road purposes  are  also  worthy  of  consideration.  Railroads 
crossing  a  bridge  start  on  a  sharp  up-grade  which  it  requires  a 
maximum  of  power  to  overcome.  The  contrary  is  true  of  a 
tunnel,  where  gravity  alone  will  carry  a  train  almost  to  the  end 
of  the  route,  and  only  a  minimum  of  power  is  required. 
Furthermore,  a  tunnel  is  constructed  on  the  firmest  of  foun- 
dations, while  a  bridge  is  suspended  in  mid-air.  There  is  no 
limit,  therefore,  to  the  length,  weight  and  number  of  trains 
that  can  be  run  on  a  tunnel  roadbed.  Trains  on  the  Brooklyn 
Bridge  have  a  speed  of  about  ten  miles  an  hour.  Trains  are 
run  through  a  tunnel  at  from  thirty  to  forty  miles  an  hour. 
This  means  that  fully  twice  as  many  passengers  can  be  carried 
under  conditions  otherwise  equal. 

Bridges  over  the  East  river  at  a  height  of  155  or  160  feet 
require  long  approaches,  for  which  enormously  expensive 
pieces  of  private  property  must  be  acquired  by  purchase  or  by 
condemnation  proceedings.  Tunnels  can  be  constructed 
wholly  within  the  lines  of  city  streets,  and  interfere  scarcely  at 
all  with  vested  property  rights. 

Bridges  are  pieces  of  machinery  which  must  be  constantly 
watched  and  carefully  maintained  at  large  expense;  tunnels, 
on  the  other  hand,  after  their  first  cost,  require  scarcely  any 
expenditure  for  maintenance. 

The  greatest  advantage  of  tunnels  over  bridges,  however, 


8 


is,  in  my  judgment,  yet  to  be  stated.  Tunnels  can  be  con- 
structed in  practically  any  locality  and  can,  therefore,  be 
planned  to  run  to  and  from  such  points  as  will  best  serve  the 
natural  tide  of  travel.  Bridges,  on  the  contrary,  must  be  con- 
structed at  the  arbitrary  locations  necessitated  by  the  topogra- 
phy of  the  city  and  the  configuration  of  the  river.  It  is  at 
least  an  open  question  whether  the  new  bridge  planned  between 
the  boroughs  of  Manhattan  and  Brooklyn  will  accommodate 
travel  to  and  from  the  most  necessary  points.  It  will  doubtless 
serve  to  relieve  the  pressure  on  the  old  Brooklyn  Bridge,  but 
to  some  extent  its  purposes  and  results  will  duplicate  those  of 
that  structure.  The  needs  of  the  most  rapidly  growing  district 
in  Kings  County — South  Brooklyn — will  not  be  met  at  all.  In 
offering  these  remarks  it  is  far  from  my  intention  to  criticise 
the  action  of  the  Bridge  Department,  which,  I  understand, 
could  scarcely  have  acted  otherwise  than  it  has  in  the  prepara- 
tion of  these  plans;  since  a  bridge  to  relieve  South  Brooklyn 
was,  in  view  of  the  engineering  and  financial  difficulties,  a 
practical  impossibility.  A  tunnel  to  the  South  Brooklyn  dis- 
trict, however,  is  entirely  feasible. 

This  difficulty  experienced  by  the  Bridge  Department  in 
locating  a  bridge  where  it  is  most  needed  illustrates  forcibly 
the  chief  advantage  of  a  tunnel  over  a  bridge. 

The  New  East  River  Bridge  now  under  construction  starts 
in  Brooklyn  from  a  moderately  useful  location  and  ends  in 
Manhattan — nowhere.  These  two  bridges  now  proposed  both 
begin  and  end  nowhere.  Only  the  old  Brooklyn  Bridge,  which 
occupies  an  exceptional  position,  for  which  no  parallel  can  be 
found,  connects  two  great  natural  receiving  and  distributing 
points — the  two  city  halls. 

In  the  case  of  the  New  East  River  Bridge,  the  Manhattan 


9 


approach  of  which  is  to  terminate  far  east  of  the  Bowery,  can 
it  be  doubted  that  if  it  had  not  been  for  the  fear  of  adding  to 
the  already  enormous  expense  of  the  land  required  to  be  con- 
demned, the  Manhattan  approach  would  have  been  carried  at 
least  to  the  Bowery,  or,  far  better  still,  to  Broadway  ?  When 
this  bridge  is  finished,  according  to  present  plans,  it  will  be  half 
useless,  owing  to  the  difficulties  of  access  on  the  Manhattan 
side,  and  already  suggestions  have  been  made  for  a  new  thor- 
oughfare to  be  cut  diagonally  across  the  city  from  this  terminus 
to  the  vicinity  of  Cooper  Union.  The  cost  of  such  an  avenue, 
if  it  were  ever  constructed,  would  be  enormous.  If  a  tunnel 
had  been  constructed  instead  of  this  bridge,  it  would  have  been 
completed  long  ago  at  a  cost  not  exceeding  one-third  that  of 
the  bridge,  and  that  tunnel  would  have  terminated  at  Broad- 
way, with  possibly  an  intermediate  station  at  the  Bowery. 
Furthermore,  it  could  have  been  continued  at  any  time,  at  small 
cost,  to  the  Xorth  river,  if  necessary. 

The  City  is  about  to  let  a  contract  for  the  construction  of 
the  underground  Rapid  Transit  Railroad.  It  is  a  mistake  to 
think  that  this  road  will  inure  to  the  sole  benefit  of  the  Bor- 
ough of  Manhattan.  It  ought  to  benefit  greatly  also  the 
inhabitants  of  the  Borough  of  Brooklyn.  But  to  do  so  to  the 
best  advantage  it  must  be  made  accessible  to  them.  Will  any 
of  the  bridges  built,  building  or  proposed  to  be  built  over  the 
East  river  serve  as  feeders  to,  or  recipients  of,  the  traffic  on  this 
road  ? 

The  old  Brooklyn  Bridge  will  so  serve,  but  with  the  incon- 
venience of  a  change  from  an  overhead  to  an  underground 
system.    The  other  bridges  will  be  practically  inaccessible. 

If  tunnels  were  to  be  built,  however,  the  most  direct  con- 
nections could  be  made,  and  it  would  not  be  too  much  to  expect 


IO 

that  in  course  of  time  passengers  could  ride  without  change  of 
cars  from  the  Harlem  river  to  East  New  York  or  Coney  Island. 

It  only  remains  to  consider  whether  there  would  be  any 
delay  in  the  construction  of  tunnels  from  the  necessity  of 
securing  additional  legislation.  Fortunately  the  Charter  con- 
tains ample  provision  for  this  work.  Section  48  provides  that 
"  the  municipal  assembly  shall  have  power  to  provide,  by  ordi- 
nance, *  *  *  for  the  building  of  bridges  and  the  estab- 
lishment of  ferries  over  and  of  tunnels  under  any  stream  or 
waterway  within  or  adjoining  the  limits  of  the  city." 

Section  415  vests  in  the  Board  of  Public  Improvements 
power  to  acquire  title  to  lands  above  or  under  water  required 
for  tunnels  or  approaches  thereto.  Section  970  makes  the 
general  provisions  of  the  city  street  opening  law  applicable  as 
well  to  the  procedure  in  acquiring  land  needed  for  tunnels,  and 
by  section  174  the  awards,  when  made,  are  directed  to  be  paid 
from  the  fund  for  Street  and  Park  Openings. 

In  presenting  these  considerations  to  the  Board  of  Estimate 
and  Apportionment,  I  feel  that  the  most  momentous  results 
will  flow  from  the  action  to  be  taken  by  this  Board.  We  are 
now  at  the  turning  of  the  ways,  and,  if  the  wrong  path  be 
chosen,  an  irretrievable  damage  will  be  done  to  the  interests  of 
this  City  and  its  inhabitants.  It  is  my  belief  that  if  the  City 
should  persist  in  the  folly  of  building  enormously  expensive 
bridges  over  the  East  river,  which  do  not  accomplish  the  pur- 
pose for  which  they  are  designed,  the  day  will  soon  come  when 
a  correct  solution,  which  is  now  possible,  will  become  impos- 
sible. 

The  expenditure  of  $30,000,000,  in  addition  to  the  cost  of 
the  Rapid  Transit  Road,  will  exhaust  the  City's  debt-incurring 
capacity  within  constitutional  limitations.    If  this  $30,000,000 


1 1 

were  to  be  spent  in  tunnels,  about  four  times  as  many  passen- 
gers could  be  carried  as  the  two  proposed  bridges  would 
accommodate;  the  tunnels  would  be  ready  for  use  long  before 
the  bridges ;  the  people  would  be  carried  to  and  from  the  places 
where  and  whence  they  wanted  to  go,  and  not  deposited  in 
inaccessible  localities,  and  the  present  congested  condition  of 
the  principal  thoroughfares  of  Brooklyn  would  be  relieved. 
In  all  probability  much  less  than  $30,000,000  would  accomplish 
this  result. 

But  if,  on  the  other  hand,  this  $30,000,000 — being  the  last 
dollars  that  the  City  now  has  to  spend  for  any  purpose — be 
largely  wasted  on  two  bridges  which  admittedly  will  not  satisfy 
the  demands  of  the  people  of  Brooklyn,  the  Treasury  will  be 
exhausted  and  the  City  rendered  helpless  to  afford  any  further 
improvement  in  transit  facilities. 

Never  before,  I  believe,  were  public  officers  called  upon  to 
assume  so  weighty  a  responsibility;  and  to  act  according  to 
our  unbiased  judgment,  with  the  fullest  information  possibly 
obtainable,  is  a  solemn  duty.  In  the  short  time  elapsed  between 
the  meeting  of  the  Board  of  Public  Improvements  and  this 
meeting  there  has  been  little  opportunity  for  securing  profes- 
sional advice.  I  have  requested,  however,  from  two  engineers 
of  the  highest  standing,  both  of  them  specialists  in  tunnel  con- 
struction, opinions  on  this  subject.  One  is  Mr.  William  B. 
Parsons,  the  Engineer  of  the  Rapid  Transit  Railroad  Com- 
mission, whose  reputation  needs  no  commentary;  the  other  is 
Mr.  John  V.  Davies,  whose  work  in  connection  with  the  con- 
struction of  the  East  River  Gas  tunnel  renders  his  advice 
peculiarly  authoritative.  If  replies  can  be  obtained  in  time  I 
shall  ask  the  Board  to  give  to  these  professional  opinions  the 
consideration  they  deserve. 


12 


The  following  resolution  is  also  offered  for  the  considera- 
tion of  the  Board. 

Respectfully, 

Bird  S.  Coler, 

Comptroller. 

Resolved,  That  the  Board  of  Public  Improvements  be 
requested,  at  the  earliest  possible  date  and  within  thirty  days, 
to  report  in  regard  to  the  feasibility  and  desirability  of  accom- 
modating traffic  between  the  Borough  of  Manhattan  and  the 
boroughs  of  Brooklyn  and  Queens  by  means  of  tunnels  under 
the  East  river  rather  than  by  bridges  over  said  river,  said  report 
to  cover,  in  addition  to  such  other  questions  as  may  seem  perti- 
nent (i)  comparative  cost;  (2)  comparative  time  necessary  to 
construct,  and  ( 3  )  comparative  facilities  for  traffic ;  and 

Resolved,  That  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  the  greatest 
possible  authority  for  said  report,  the  Board  of  Public  Improve- 
ments be  requested  to  engage  the  services  of  the  most  eminent 
engineers  familiar  with  the  scientific  problems  involved  in  the 
scope  of  this  inquiry,  among  whom  the  following  are  respect-' 
fully  named  for  consideration  : 

Bridge  Engineers — L.  L.  Buck,  C.  C.  Martin,  Samuel  R. 
Probasco. 

Tunnel  Engineers — William  B.  Parsons,  John  V.  Davies, 
A.  Fteley. 


13 


I. 

Expert  Opinions  in  Favor  of  Tunnels* 

New  York,  December  4,  1899. 

Hon.  Bird  S.  Coler, 

Comptroller,  City  of  New  York: 

Dear  Sir — You  advise  us  that  the  City  of  New  York  has 
under  consideration  the  expenditure  of  some  $28,000,000  for 
the  purpose  of  building  two  bridges  across  the  East  river ;  one 
to  the  north  and  very  near  the  present  Brooklyn  Bridge,  and 
the  other  near  East  Sixtieth  street,  crossing  over  Blackweil's 
Island;  and  in  response  to  your  request  we  beg  to  report  to 
you  on  some  of  the  advantages  of  tunnels  over  bridges  for 
dealing  with  the  transportation  problem  of  this  city. 

Manhattan  forms  the  business  centre  of  the  Greater  City 
of  Xew  York,  and  it  is  to  and  from  it  that  the  great  tide  of 
travel  with  The  Bronx,  Queens,  Brooklyn  and  Richmond  daily 
flows.  The  travel  in  Manhattan,  north  and  south,  is  well  cared 
for  by  the  four  lines  of  Elevated  Rail  way  and  thirteen  main  lines 
of  surface  cars.  Travel  into  The  Bronx  is  covered  by  numerous 
bridges  over  the  Harlem,  by  extensions  of  these  elevated  and 
surface  lines,  besides  the  service  of  the  Xew  York  Central. 
Harlem,  New  Haven  and  X.  Y.  &  Xorthern  Steam  Railroads. 
It  is  the  great  residential  districts  of  Queens,  Brooklyn  and 
Richmond  which  are  most  inadequately  provided  for. 

The  Rapid  Transit  Commission  is  now  letting  contracts  for 
construction  of  their  great  north  and  south  subway,  and  it  is 
to  and  with  that  line,  as  well  as  every  existing  line,  that  con- 
nection should  be  made  to  give  the  greatest  efficiency.  Apart 
from  the  ferries,  the  only  existing  thoroughfare  over  the  East 
river  is  the  overloaded  Brooklyn  Bridge ;  and  now  under  con- 
struction the  XTew  East  River  Bridge  for  future  service.  The 
early  growth  of  the  cities  placed  the  City  Halls  of  New  York 
and  Brooklyn  near  the  water-front,  so  that  the  Brooklyn 


Bridge  reaches  nearly  from  one  to  the  other.  This  cannot 
occur  again.  The  New  East  River  Bridge  merely  spans  the 
river,  with  approaches  long  enough  to  enable  the  streets  to  be 
reached  by  practicable  grade  at  each  end.  The  same  thing 
applies  to  the  new  bridges.  They  are  connections  from  water- 
front to  water-front,  and  travel  must  be  diverted  to  come  to 
them.  For  their  construction  enormously  valuable  real  estate 
must  be  acquired,  of  which  the  cost  is  purely  estimate.  The 
trucking  business  is,  for  the  most  part,  a  river-front  business, 
which  will  continue  to  be  taken  care  of  by  the  ferries,  even 
though  one  of  these  bridges  is  to  be  built  over  the  line  of  a 
ferry.  The  operation  of  the  ferries  is  a  source  of  revenue  to 
the  City.  The  light  vehicle  traffic  is  of  little  consequence,  and 
might  continue  to  cross  the  ferries,  so  that  the  provision  of 
great  roadway  facilities  on  these  bridges  is  not  essential,  and 
the  earnings  from  wagon  receipts  will  hardly  pay  the  main- 
tenance expenses.  The  river  crossings  are  essentially  passen- 
ger transportation  problems.  Four-track  bridges  are  quite 
unnecessary,  as  the  even  distribution  of  traffic  is  better  accom- 
plished by  multiplying  the  points  of  crossing  rather  than  by 
the  expenditure  of  huge  sums  on  construction  of  a  few  great 
structures  designed  to  concentrate  travel.  The  cheapness  of 
deep  tunnel  construction  permits  of  doing  this,  and  thereby 
subdividing  the  entries  and  promoting  uniform  expansion  of 
the  city  and  suburbs. 

From  the  suburbs  the  travel  is,  of  course,  largest  to  the 
lower  end  of  Manhattan,  but  it  is  enormous  also  to  every  part 
of  the  Island.  It  is  obvious,  then,  that  what  is  needed  is  to 
intersect  every  one  of  the  17  main  north  and  south  railway 
lines  at  numerous  points  by  east  and  west  lines,  making  through 
connection  of  the  most  rapid  kind  to  the  eastern  side  of  East 
river.  Tunnels  are  the  only  feasible  solution  of  this  problem. 
The  capacity  of  a  single  double-track  railroad  should  be  the 
same  whether  tunnel  or  bridge,  and  the  comfortable  limit  is 
about  15,000  passengers  for  the  maximum  hour,  or,  on  the 
East  river  passenger  movement,  equivalent  to  110,000  per  day. 


15 


A  double-track  tunnel,  to  carry  this  number  of  passengers, 
can  be  constructed  to  do  the  same  business  as  either  of  the  two 
bridges  proposed,  from  suitable  terminal  points  on  either  side 
of  the  East  river,  and  be  fitted  with  efficient  terminal  stations 
and  elevator  service  for  $1,900,000  in  place  of  the  Blackwell's 
Island  Bridge,  estimated  to  cost  some  $13,000,000;  and  for 
$2,250,000  in  place  of  the  lower  bridge,  estimated  to  cost  some 
$15,000,000.  Xo  real  estate  would  be  needed  for  the  tunnel 
construction,  as  the  City  could  use  its  own  street  property. 
For  the  amount  proposed  to  be  expended  for  the  two  bridges 
now  under  construction,  no  less  than  12  double-track  tunnels 
could  be  built  from  suitable  terminal  points  near  each  shore, 
and  it  is  obvious  that  such  a  multiplicity  of  connections  would 
provide  enormously  greater  facilities  to  the  public  than  the 
concentration  of  travel  to  two  bridges.  All  transportation 
facilities  constructed  by  the  City  should  be  definitely  part  of 
a  complete  system.  Bridges  can  only,  possibly,  be  isolated 
units;  and  in  their  place  should  be  constructed  double-track 
tunnels,  having  their  eastern  portals  at  convenient  collecting 
points,  to  take  all  the  travel  coming  in  the  direction  of  Manhat- 
tan, and  situated  at  intervals  corresponding  to  the  density  of 
population  and  running  in  more  or  less  parallel  lines  below  the 
East  river  and  clear  across  Manhattan  Island,  to  intersect  every 
north  and  south  railway  line ;  making  "  all-rail  "  connections 
to  the  proposed  Rapid  Transit  Subway,  and  transfer  connec- 
tions with  all  surface  lines.  On  the  map  herewith  we  lay  down, 
arbitrarily,  four  such  east  and  west  lines,  which  would  fairly 
and  uniformly  distribute  the  travel.* 

1st.  From  West  street,  along  and  below  Canal,  Sullivan  and 
Grand  streets,  to  and  below  the  East  river  to  Kent 
avenue,  and  under  that  street  to  Flushing  avenue,  near 
Wallabout  Market.  This  line  would  be  3^  miles  long 
and  cost  $7,750,000;  complete  with  stations. 


*  See  Map  post. 


i6 

2d.  Crossing  Fourteenth  street,  from  the  North  river  to  and 
under  the  East  river  to  and  under  North  Ninth  street, 
Brooklyn,  with  terminus  at  Union  avenue,  a  total 
length  of  ^y2  miles  and  cost  $4,850,000. 
3d.  Crossing  from  west  to  east  on  Fifty-seventh  street  and 
under  Blackwell's  Island  and  streets  of  Long  Island 
to  a  point  of  connection  at  Jackson  avenue,  with  sur- 
face and  Long  Island  Railroad  lines.    Distance,  3 
miles ;  cost,  $4,700,000. 
4th.  From  Eleventh  avenue,  under  Manhattan  avenue  and 
One  Hundred  and  Twenty-fifth  street,  under  the  Har- 
lem river  and  Randall's  Island;  Sunken  Meadow  and 
East  river  to  Astoria,  so  as  to  connect  with  surface 
lines  to  be  built  on  old  Bowery  road.    Distance,  3^ 
miles;  cost,  $5,250,000. 
These  four  lines  would  cost  altogether  $22,550,000.  Each 
line  is  a  complete  railroad;  while  connected  as  it  is  with  every 
north  and  south  line,  the  service  is  incalculably  greater  in  value 
to  the  community  than  two  bridges  at  the  water-front.  The 
lower  end  of  Manhattan  is  to  be  served  by  the  proposed 
improvements  of  the  Long  Island  Railroad;  which,  with  its 
direct  railroad  connection,  will  be  of  the  greatest  possible 
advantage  to  the  traveling  public,  and  particularly  so  as  it  will 
form  an  "  all-rail  "  through  connection  to  all  Long  Island.  It 
will  be  constructed  by  private  enterprise,  and  has  been  designed 
to  make  a  close  connection  with  the  future  Rapid  Transit  Sub- 
way.   South  Brooklyn  and  Richmond  must  be  served  by  an 
extension  of  the  Rapid  Transit  Subway,  and  should  be  treated 
as  part  of  that  project.    The  crossing  from  the  Battery  to 
Brooklyn  would  be  entirely  in  rock,  involving  cheap  tunneling, 
and  the  line  could  be  continued  under  Hamilton  and  Fourth 
avenues  to  Ninety-second  street,  crossing  the  Narrows  to  Van- 
derbilt  on  Staten  Island,  a  distance  of  about  9  miles.  This 
line  of  route  is  urgently  needed  and  its  value  cannot  be  over- 
estimated.   These  cross  lines  of  tunnel,  in  conjunction  with 
the  Rapid  Transit  Subway,  will  comprise  a  complete  system, 


i7 


giving  facilities  to  every  section  of  Greater  New  York,  and 
the  Rapid  Transit  scheme,  developed  in  this  way,  becomes  a 
system  for  the  entire  city  instead  of  what  it  has  heretofore 
been,  a  project  for  Manhattan  and  Bronx  only. 

sNew  York  is  peculiarly  adapted  for  cheap  and  safe  tunnel- 
ing. Rock  everywhere  exists  at  very  easy  depth,  and  tunneling 
in  rock  is  the  cheapest  class  of  the  work.  The  entire  bottom 
of  East  river  is  covered  with  hard,  compact,  glacial  formations 
admirably  adapted  to  safe  and  economical  tunnel  work.  Tun- 
nel construction  to-day  is  an  exact  science,  and  costs  can  be 
very  certainly  estimated.  Tunnel  routes  of  railway  can  con- 
form to  irregular  surface  conditions  in  far  greater  degree  than 
bridges.  Grades  can  be  carried  up  and  down  to  effect  connec- 
tions, and  directions  changed  to  follow  street  lines,  with  no 
encroachment  upon  private  property.  This  is  particularly  the 
case  with  deep  tunnels  built  largely  in  the  underlying  rock. 
No  damage  is  effected  to  abutting  properties  under  modern 
methods  of  tunneling,  and  no  claims  for  damage  due  to  obstruc- 
tion of  surface  rights  are  involved,  as  are  almost  invariably  the 
case  with  bridge  construction.  In  the  river  sections,  a  bridge 
must  give  clear  height  above  tide  of  135  feet,  or  height  to 
grade  line  of  nearly  150  feet,  and  under  recent  U.  S.  regula- 
tions this  height  must  be  carried  to  the  pier  line.  A  tunnel 
need  only  give  36  feet  water  depth  below  tide  and  safe  depth 
for  construction  below  that  level,  or,  say,  60  feet  to  grade. 
These  elevations  involve  approaches  for  tunnel  of  less  than  half 
the  length  of  a  bridge  at  same  rate  of  grade.  While  the  grade 
is  adverse  to  traffic  on  a  bridge,  it  assists  acceleration  in  start- 
ing and  braking  in  stopping  a  train  in  a  tunnel,  and  so  permits 
greater  speed  of  train  movement  in  tunnel  than  that  across 
bridge.  This  high  speed  of  movement  is  an  essential  feature 
of  any  transportation  proposition  for  the  suburban  resident. 
Subaqueous  tunneling  is  as  easy  and  safe  as  under  land.  As 
an  illustration  :  in  the  construction  of  the  East  River  Gas  Com- 
pany Tunnel,  we  had  at  one  time  an  open  passage  to  the  bed 
of  the  river,  through  which  rubbish  came,  and  yet  it  caused 


i8 

no  serious  inconvenience  or  delay  in  the  progress  of  the  work. 

There  is  no  necessity,  therefore,  to  cross  the  river  by  the 
shortest  route,  as  is  usually  adopted  by  any  bridge  crossing, 
but  a  tunnel  may  take  any  direction  advantageous  to  terminal 
connections. 

With  deep  tunneling  no  interference  with  the  surface  is 
occasioned  during  construction,  nor  disturbance  of  sewers, 
pipes  or  electric  subways.  In  tunnel  construction  labor  is  the 
greatest  item  and  the  number  of  men  employed  is  very  great. 
Bridge  construction,  on  the  contrary,  is,  for  the  most  part, 
executed  in  another  State,  and  the  labor  employed  on  founda- 
tion construction  and  erection  is  a  very  small  item  of  the  whole 
cost.  Thus  in  tunnel  construction  the  greater  part  of  the 
money  expended  is  retained  within  the  city  itself,  while  bridge 
construction  enriches  other  communities.  In  the  operation  of 
completed  line,  the  cost  of  maintenance  of  tunnel  structure  is 
practically  nothing,  while  the  single  item  of  "  painting "  a 
bridge  structure  is  of  serious  consequence.  The  depreciation 
of  a  bridge  is  far  in  excess  of  that  of  a  tunnel. 

The  operation  of  a  tunnel  railway  is  not  interfered  with  by 
climatic  conditions  of  fog,  snow,  ice,  etc.,  as  is  a  bridge. 

For  short  spans  and  low  elevations,  bridges  are  the  cheaper 
in  first  cost,  but  when  the  necessary  span  is  great  and  pier 
height  large,  then  the  first  cost  and  maintenance  of  a  tunnel  is 
enormously  less  than  that  of  a  bridge  for  conducting  railway 
transportation. 

A  tunnel  crossing  below  a  navigable  waterway  leaves  the 
water-front  unbroken  and  navigation  unimpeded,  which  a 
bridge  does  not  do,  and  the  frontage  occupied  by  the  piers  is 
permanently  lost  to  the  City  for  dock  rental.  A  street  or  public 
place  may  have  a  tunnel  in  regular  operation  below,  while  its 
use  is  unimpaired  on  the  surface.  Any  bridge  structure 
reduces  the  value,  if  it  does  not  destroy  the  surface. 

Tunnel  construction  may  be  as  rapid  as  is  desired,  depend- 
ing only  on  the  number  of  faces  worked.  Complete  tunnel 
can  readily  be  built  from  two  faces  at  the  rate  of  3,500  feet 


19 


per  annum,  so  that  the  rate  of  progress  is  very  much  greater 
than  is  usual  with  long  span  bridge  construction ;  with  electric 
traction  the  question  of  ventilation  and  freshness  of  atmos- 
phere in  tunnels  is  absolutely  solved.  Xo  comparison  should 
or  can  be  made  with  any  tunnel  in  which  coal-burning  locomo- 
tives or  horses  are  used.  The  newly  constructed  deep  tunnels 
of  London  are  magnificent  demonstrations  of  this  fact. 

For  real  rapid  transit  between  all  districts  of  the  five  bor- 
oughs of  our  city,  the  development  of  the  complete  system  of 
tunnels  above  outlined  will  effect  the  most  complete  and  perfect 
results  and  induce  the  most  uniform  expansion  of  the  city  as 
a  whole. 

Respectfully  submitted, 

Jacobs  &  Davies. 


20 


4TH  December,  1899. 

The  Honorable  Bird  S.  Coler, 

Comptroller: 

Sir — In  response  to  your  inquiry  as  to  the  relative  advan- 
tages of  bridges  or  tunnels  connecting  Manhattan  and  Brooklyn 
I  beg  leave  to  state  that  a  tunnel  possesses  the  following  advan- 
tages over  a  bridge : 

1.  Economy  in  cost  of  construction. 

2.  Great  economy  in  cost  of  annual  maintenance. 

3.  The  tunnel  requires  no  purchase  of  expensive  land  for 
approaches,  as  it  can  utilize  for  this  purpose  City  property 
beneath  the  streets.  This  is  a  saving  not  only  in  prime  cost, 
but  avoids  the  withdrawal  of  valuable  real  estate  from  taxable 
values. 

4.  A  tunnel  not  requiring  costly  purchase  of  real  estate  can 
be  run  anywhere,  even  directly  across  the  city,  and  so  connect 
with  every  north  and  south  transportation  line  in  Manhattan. 

5.  The  gradients  on  the  approaches  are  descending  from 
the  terminal  points  in  the  case  of  a  tunnel,  and  ascending  in 
the  case  of  a  bridge.  Trains  can  therefore  be  started  more 
quickly  and  operated  more  economically  in  the  former  case. 

In  constructing  tunnels  beneath  the  East  river  there  is 
nothing  experimental  in  the  project.  The  soil  beneath  the 
river  has  been  tested  by  boring  at  a  number  of  points,  and  it 
is  known  to  be  an  admirable  material  through  which  to  bore. 
Beneath  the  Battery  and  South  Brooklyn  the  bottom  is  rock; 
north  of  that,  at  such  depths  as  a  tunnel  would  probably  be 
constructed,  it  is  a  more  compact  material,  which,  with  modern 
methods,  is  easily  penetrated  and  without  any  uncertainty. 

A  modern  tunnel  for  such  a  purpose  is  a  tube  composed  of 
heavy  cast-iron  plates,  bolted  together  and  absolutely  water- 
tight. On  the  outside  of  the  iron  there  is  a  layer  of  concrete 
to  protect  the  same  from  the  action  of  water,  and  the  inside 
can  be  lined  with  light  colored  or  enameled  bricks,  or  at  least 
of  such  color  or  design  as  to  give  the  most  pleasing  and  attract- 
ive appearance. 


21 


Tunnels  of  this  character  have  been  constructed  in  so  many 
places  abroad  as  to  place  their  stability  beyond  question.  In 
London  there  are  constructed,  or  under  construction,  twenty 
miles  of  double-track  tunnel  of  this  form,  at  depths  ranging 
from  50  to  100  feet  beneath  the  surface  of  the  street.  There 
are  two  double-track  tunnels  beneath  the  Thames,  and  the  large 
Blackwell  tunnel  under  the  Thames,  below  London,  a  tube  27 
feet  in  diameter,  containing  a  roadway  for  vehicles  and  side- 
walks for  pedestrians,  with  a  length  of  over  6,000  feet,  of 
which  about  1,200  feet  are  beneath  the  river  proper. 

In  Glasgow,  beneath  the  Clyde,  there  are  two  double-track 
tunnels  passing  under  the  river  twice,  together  with  a  triple- 
tube  tunnel  constructed  by  the  City  authorities,  with  a  length 
of  750  feet.  Two  of  the  tubes  are  used  by  vehicles  and  one 
by  pedestrians. 

There  is  also  a  similar  tunnel  now  existing  beneath  the  East 
river,  passing  under  Blackwell's  Island.  This  tunnel,  although 
constructed  for  gas  purposes,  is  large  enough  to  pass  a  surface 
railway  car,  and  can  be  inspected  at  any  time. 

The  two  bridges  contemplated  between  Manhattan  and 
Brooklyn  are  estimated  to  cost  $28,000,000,  exclusive  of  inter- 
est during  construction.  Two  double-track  railroad  tunnels 
on  the  same  location  would  cost,  approximately,  $8,000,000; 
or,  by  extending  the  Blackwell's  Island  location  from  Second 
avenue  to  Third  or  Fourth  avenue,  where  the  traffic  facilities 
are  much  better,  the  cost  for  this  tunnel  would  be.  approxi- 
mately, $4,000,000,  as  against  $12,500,000  for  the  bridge.  In 
like  manner,  by  extending  the  Pike's  Slip  location  from  its 
proposed  terminus  at  Canal  street  to  the  location  of  the  under- 
ground railway  at  Elm  street,  the  cost  of  such  a  double-track 
tunnel  would  be.  approximately,  $6,000,000,  as  against 
$16,000,000  for  the  bridge.  Or.  for  the  same  amount,  namely, 
$28,000,000,  as  the  two  bridges  are  to  cost,  eight  double-track 
tunnels  of  equal  length  could  be  constructed,  or,  say,  six  or 
seven  double-track  tunnels  not  only  to  the  east  side  of  the  city 
but  reaching  across  to  the  Rapid  Transit  Railway  or  to  the 


22 


other  transportation  lines — that  is  to  say,  for  the  same  expen- 
diture on' the  part  of  the  City,  not  only  could  communication  be 
secured  on  the  two  locations  as  suggested,  but  additional  means 
of  communication  could  be  secured  at  South  Ferry,  Wall  street, 
Twenty-third,  Thirty-fourth  and  Forty-second  streets. 

The  advantages  of  the  multiplicity  of  connection  are  so 
obvious  as  to  not  require  elaboration — in  giving  greater  con- 
venience to  the  people  by  providing  connections  with  all  the 
north  and  south  lines  on  Manhattan,  without  necessitating  any 
intermediate  transfers,  and  so  expediting  the  inter-urban  jour- 
ney, and  distributing  the  travel,  and  so  avoiding  the  growing 
tendency  to  congestion.  These  advantages  are  worth  securing, 
even  at  a  greatly  increased  cost ;  but  when  they  can  be  secured 
at  the  same  price,  or  even  less,  the  advisability  of  considering 
tunnel  construction  is  obvious. 

In  conclusion,  I  desire  to  call  your  attention  to  the  desira- 
bility of  tunnel  construction  in  connection  with  the  proposed 
Rapid  Transit  System.  I  understand  there  is  a  great  desire 
on  all  sides  to  connect  the  Battery  in  Manhattan  with  South 
Brooklyn,  and  that  the  idea  of  a  bridge  has  been  abandoned  by 
the  City  authorities,  with  much  regret,  as  being  impracticable. 

The  bed  of  the  river  at  this  point  being  rock,  there  exist 
the  very  best  conditions  for  tunneling.  A  double-track  tunnel 
can  be  constructed  from  South  Ferry  to  the  foot  of,  say, 
Atlantic  avenue,  in  South  Brooklyn,  at  a  cost  of  $3,000,000,. 
in  round  numbers,  and  by  connecting  such  a  tunnel  with  the 
Rapid  Transit  Railway  now  about  to  be  undertaken,  and  which, 
when  built,  will  be  the  City's  property,  the  South  Brooklyn 
population  would  not  only  be  in  direct  connection  with  the 
Borough  of  Manhattan  at  least  as  well  as  by  a  bridge,  but  in 
immediate  physical  connection  with  the  Rapid  Transit  System. 
By  running  through  cars  passengers  can  be  taken  directly  from 
Brooklyn  on  express  trains  of  the  Rapid  Transit  System  to  any 
point  in  the  boroughs  of  Manhattan  and  Bronx.  Such  a  tun- 
nel can  be  either  extended  to  such  a  point  or  points  in  Brooklyn 
as  may  be  desired,  or  connection  can  be  made  with  its  terminus 


23 


by  the  existing  surface  lines,  and  so  affording  means  of  local 
distribution. 

By  using  electricity  or  compressed  air  for  the  motive  power, 
and  by  lighting  the  tunnel  by  electricity,  the  existing  prejudice 
to  tunnels  based  on  the  ordinary  smoke-laden  and  dark,  damp 
structures,  will  be  at  once  destroyed.  Under  such  conditions 
the  atmosphere  will  be  found  to  be,  on  the  average,  more  desir- 
able and  agreeable  than  on  a  bridge,  as  the  tunnel  will  be  free 
from  the  effects  of  storms,  blizzards,  rains  and  hot  sun. 

Respectfully  yours, 

(Sgd.)  Wm.  Barclay  Parsons. 


24 


II. 

Expert  Opinions  in  Favor  of  Bridges. 

1.  The  two  methods  of  crossing  rivers  by  means  of  tunnels 
and  bridges  have  been  very  thoroughly  considered  by  engineers 
under  many  varying  conditions ;  with  the  net  result  in  the  ver- 
dict that  where  a  bridge  is  possible  it  is  preferable,  and  only 
where  a  bridge  is  practically  impossible  is  a  tunnel  to  be  prop- 
erly considered. 

There  have  been  exceptions  to  this  general  proposition, 
and  such  exceptions  are  invariably  conspicuous  proofs  of  the 
general  proposition. 

The  sub-aqueous  tunnels  of  London  are  damp,  dark  and 
offensive,  almost  without  exception,  and  no  one  capable  of 
forming  an  unbiased  opinion  would  prefer  them  to  bridges  as 
a  means  of  crossing  a  river. 

The  short  sub-aqueous  tunnels  of  Chicago  have  been  con- 
demned almost  without  exception.  Some  have  been  aban- 
doned and  replaced  by  bridges,  and  it  is  doubtful  if  any  one 
can  now  be  found  who  would  advocate  extension  of  their  use 
in  that  quarter. 

In  Great  Britain,  where  experience  with  sub-aqueous  tun- 
nels have  been  more  extensive  than  in  any  other  country, 
despite  the  stupendous  spans  and  enormous  cost  of  securing  a 
double-track  railroad  bridge  across  the  Firth  of  Forth,  a  tun- 
nel was  not  even  considered  subsequent  to  1807  when  long 
span  bridges  were  scarcely  thought  of.  Subsequent  develop- 
ment of  structural  steel  completely  killed  the  tunnel  project. 

2.  Sub-aqueous  tunnels  such  as  would  be  required  for  city 
traffic  under  the  East  river  would  be  purely  experimental,  both 
as  to  execution  of  the  work  and  operation.  The  construction 
of  one  such  tunnel  under  the  North  river  was  tried  and  aban- 
doned after  the  expenditure  of  large  sums  of  money. 

The  great  depth  to  which  it  is  necessary  to  go,  the  uncer- 
tainty of  the  material  that  is  necessary  to  penetrate,  the  utter 
impossibility  of  even  approximating  the  cost  of  such  work, 


25 


makes  it  an  engineering  problem,  to  say  the  least,  doubtful  of 
economical  solution.  Then,  if  it  is  accomplished,  the  meagre- 
ness  of  the  results,  the  great  difficulty  of  maintenance  and  the 
serious  objections  and  dangers  attending  the  use  of  it,  are 
cogent  facts  against  a  tunnel. 

3.  It  would  be  almost  impossible  to  so  construct  such  a 
tunnel  as  to  render  it  dry  or  to  avoid  the  necessity  of  a  com- 
plete system  of  drainage  and  an  extensive  pumping  plant  to 
remove  the  inflowing  water,  both  seepage  and  rain  from  the 
open  cuts. 

4.  It  is  practically  impossible  to  locate  a  tunnel  under  the 
East  river,  having  a  grade  that  would  permit  team  traffic 
and  at  the  same  time  have  a  terminal  at  a  reasonably  accessible 
point  on  the  Island  of  Manhattan.  A  tunnel  would  have  to 
be  at  a  depth  of  not  less  than  120  feet  below  mean  high  water 
at  the  centre  of  the  river,  and  would  have  to  come  to  grade 
at  30  feet  above  mean  high  water.  To  accomplish  this  would 
require  an  approach  of  about  4,000  feet  length,  a  feature  not 
easy  to  obtain.  It  would  be  well  to  have  produced  some  gen- 
eral plans  showing  depths,  grades,  locations,  etc.,  of  any  pro- 
posed tunnel.  It  is  not  venturing  very  far  to  assume  that  no 
such  design  can  be  found  adaptable  for  general  city  usage,  or, 
in  other  words,  be  made  to  fill  the  functions  of  a  bridge. 

The  proposition  presented  so  far  is  too  general  and  the 
claims  too  vague  to  enable  any  specific  refutation  of  them  to 
be  made. 

5.  Assuming  the  section  of  a  tunnel  to  be  circular,  as  it 
would  probably  have  to  be  in  a  case  like  this,  a  tunnel  about 
28  feet  in  diameter  would  be  required  to  accommodate  a 
double-tracked  road,  either  for  trolley  cars  or  trains  similar  to 
elevated  trains.  For  full-sized  railroad  trains  a  larger  section 
would  be  required. 

Now,  to  furnish  the  four  trolley  tracks,  two  elevated  tracks, 
two  roadways,  two  sidewalks  and  a  bicycle  path,  which  is  to 
be  the  capacity  of  the  new  East  River  Bridge,  would  require 
at  least  five  of  these  28-foot  tunnels,  or  else  six  15-foot  tunnels 


26 


and  two  28-foot  tunnels,  which  latter  arrangement  would  be 
cheaper.  The  only  fair  basis  of  comparison  of  the  two  systems 
is  that  of  capacity  furnished.  To  speak  of  substituting  a  tun- 
nel for  a  bridge,  without  qualification  or  comparison  of  a 
capacity  of  each,  would  be  an  absurdity.  Further  on  this  basis 
it  can  unquestionably  be  shown  that  the  cost  of  a  system  of 
tunnels  would  vastly  exceed  the  cost  of  a  bridge  of  the  same 
capacity. 

6.  Tunnels  are  wholly  unfit  for  the  use  of  teams  and  pedes- 
trians, and,  in  fact,  only  tolerable  when  of  any  considerable 
length  for  the  use  of  fast  trains.  Even  in  this  case,  although 
tolerable  when  unavoidable,  they  are  wholly  undesirable,  as 
can  be  readily  demonstrated  by  a  trip  through  the  Park  avenue 
subway,  especially  in  hot  weather.  And  here  the  conditions 
are  infinitely  more  conducive  to  comfort  than  in  a  sub-aqueous 
tunnel,  whose  means  of  ventilation  can  only  be  had  by  the  use 
of  machines.  The  Boston  subways  are  often  cited  as  conspic- 
uous examples  of  the  excellence  and  inoffensiveness  of  tunnels. 
Subways  are  not  tunnels,  for  in  almost  all  cases  these  are  above 
water  and  are  easy  to  keep  dry  and  clean  as  well  as  properly 
ventilated.  Further,  they  are  near  enough  the  surface  to  be 
readily  accessible.  In  fact  these  subways  are  nothing  more 
than  covered  trenches,  not  tunnels  at  all. 

8.  There  seems  to  be  but  one  possible  advantage  in  a  tunnel 
under  the  East  river,  and  that  would  be  in  furnishing  to  the 
railroads  of  Long  Island  access  to  New  York.  It  would  be 
practically  inaccessible  and  useless  for  traffic  of  all  other  kinds, 
and  it  can  be  counted  as  absolutely  assured  that  all  pedestrians, 
trucks  and  vehicles  of  all  kinds  would  continue  to  use  the  fer- 
ries rather  than  resort  to  a  subterranean  passage  with  all  of  its 
discomforts,  difficulties  and  dangers. 

"When  an  entrance  to  New  York  across  the  East  river  was 
contemplated  and  work  even  begun  to  accomplish  this  object, 
a  bridge  and  not  a  tunnel  was  the  means  adopted,  doubtless 
after  mature  consideration  of  both  systems. 

R.  S.  Buck. 


27 


A  tunnel,  to  give  accommodation  equal  to  the  New  East 
River  Bridge,  would  have  to  provide  for  six  railroad  tracks 
two  wide  carriageways  and  a  promenade  for  pedestrians — 
equivalent  to  eight  tunnels : 

One  for  each  railroad  track   6 

Two  for  double  carriageways  and  pedestrians   2 

Total  tunnels  to  equal  one  bridge   8 


The  terminals  in  Brooklyn  would  probably  be  at  grade.  If 
these  tunnels  were  placed  side  by  side,  with  sufficient  earth 
between  them  to  insure  proper  support  of  the  overlying  mate- 
rial, they  would  occupy  a  space  of  about  300  feet  in  width. 
This  would  not  only  entail  an  additional  expense  for  tunnels, 
but  would  require  an  enormous  expenditure  for  approaches  to 
the  tunnels.  In  the  case  of  the  elevated  railroads,  not  onlv 
wrould  the  elevated  tracks  need  to  be  brought  to  the  ground, 
but  large  amounts  of  property  would  need  to  be  purchased  on 
which  to  locate  the  curves  necessary  to  reach  the  mouths  of  the 
various  tunnels. 

In  Xew  York  the  tunnels  could  not  come  to  the  surface 
on  account  of  the  grade,  and  the  terminal  station  would  be 
over  100  feet  below  the  street,  and  all  of  the  traffic  would  have 
to  be  hoisted  to  the  surface  by  elevators ;  to  obtain  room  for 
these  would  necessitate  the  widening  out  of  the  terminal  until 
it  would  occupy  a  very  large  area.  Then,  if  it  were  possible,  it 
would  be  well  to  imagine  the  utter  confusion  of  an  attempt  to 
elevate  20,000  people  an  hour — that  is,  a  5-car  trainload  every 
minute,  and  the  elevating  of  300  vehicles  per  hour,  or  5  per 
minute — equivalent  to  a  steady  stream  of  trucks  such  as  passes 
over  the  present  bridge  nights  and  mornings.  Also  the  elevat- 
ing of  crowds  of  foot  passengers  (that  is,  if  they  could  be 
induced  to  go  down  into  a  tunnel).  To  accommodate  all  of 
this  traffic  at  the  tops  of  the  elevators  at  the  surface  of  the 
ground,  would  require  an  enormous  area,  as  space  would  neces- 


28 


sarily  be  provided  for  discharging  all  of  these  different 
elevators  for  car  passengers,  foot  passengers  and  teams,  and 
provision  made  for  the  quick  dispersion  of  these  loads.  At 
the  same  time,  approaches  to  the  tunnels  would  have  to  be  pro- 
vided for  teams  and  people  going  in  opposite  directions. 

When  account  is  taken  of  the  numerous  tunnels  required  to 
be  built  and  the  additional  land  required  for  approaches,  it  will 
readily  be  seen  that  instead  of  a  tunnel  of  equal  capacity  as  a 
bridge,  costing  less  than  a  bridge,  it  will  be  greatly  in  excess ; 
and  when  the  inconvenience,  crowding  and  annoyance  incident 
to  underground  transit  are  considered,  there  remains  no  longer 
any  question  as  to  the  comparative  cost  of  tunnels  and  bridges, 
nor  their  convenience.    All  is  in  favor  of  bridges. 

C.  C.  Martin, 

Chief  Engineer  and  Supt. 


29 


It  is  difficult  to  make  any  comparison  between  tunnels  and 
bridges ;  the  first  are  seldom  used,  except  as  a  necessity,  while 
bridges  have  been  in  constant  and  increasing  use,  for  ornament 
as  well  as  necessity.  As  a  means  of  crossing  a  navigable 
stream  much  used  for  water  traffic,  and  passing  through  a  great 
city,  tunnels  are  seldom  used,  except  where  bridges  cannot  be 
built.  Even  on  the  River  Thames,  where  tunnels  can  readily 
be  excavated  en  account  of  the  underlying  clays,  bridges  are 
still  constructed  at  great  cost,  so  much  more  are  they  appre- 
ciated by  the  public  who  use  them.  Most  tunnels  are  dark 
and  if  constructed  below  the  bed  of  a  river,  both  damp  and 
dark.  If  the  river  is  deep,  the  tunnel  is  equally  so,  and  the 
approaches  have  to  be  very  long  if  high  land  occurs  on  either 
side  of  the  river,  which  increases  the  length  of  the  approach 
as  well — or  if  not  increased  in  length,  they  must  be  made  more 
steep. 

At  the  lower  end  of  Manhattan  Island,  and  below  the 
Suspension  Bridge,  the  depths  of  water  are  from  30  to  50  feet; 
above  the  bridge  from  50  to  70  feet,  and  between  Blackwell's 
Island  and  [Manhattan  the  water  is  from  40  to  112  feet  deep. 
These  depths  necessitate  long  approaches,  throwing  the  ends 
far  back  from  the  water-front.  This  is  equally  true  of  high 
bridges,  but  no  one  objects  to  the  length  of  a  bridge,  or  its 
height,  as  fixed  by  the  War  Department,  which  furnishes  fresh 
air,  a  beautiful  view,  and,  above  all,  the  light  of  day  or  the 
illumination  at  night,  as  contrasted  with  the  passage  through 
a  tunnel,  no  matter  how  well  lighted,  which  is  damp,  either 
with  seepage  or  condensation,  and  under  the  bed  of  a  river, 
and  from  which  only  egress  can  be  made  by  means  of  a  steep 
slope  or  an  elevator  ;  beside,  there  is  no  comparison  between 
the  facilities  which  a  bridge  affords  for  the  passage  of  loaded 
or  unloaded  vehicles ;  to  these  or  to  persons  traveling  in  their 
own  vehicles,  the  tunnel  can  afford  no  attraction  whatever.  A 
tunnel  sufficiently  wide  to  accommodate  the  travel  on  the  East 


30 


River  Bridge  now  in  use  should  have  at  least  a  clear  headroom 
of  20  feet,  so  that  in  40  feet  of  water  and  having  3  feet  of 
thickness  of  crown  below  the  level  of  the  bottom,  and  allowing- 
only,  say,  10  feet  of  the  bottom  above  the  roof,  it  would  be  73 
feet  from  high  water  to  the  floor.  Apart  from  this  depth  of 
the  interior  of  the  tunnel  is  to  be  added  the  height  of  the  land 
above  high  water.  The  drainage  of  the  tunnel  cannot  be 
neglected ;  all  the  water  that  falls  on  the  land  cuts,  connecting 
with  the  tunnel,  has  to  be  pumped  out,  involving  the  continu- 
ous use  of  pumping  machinery.  If  springs  are  met  in  the 
course  of  construction,  this  water  has  to  be  taken  care  of  as 
well ;  and  as  it  has  been  shown  at  various  times  that  it  is  dan- 
gerous to  suppress  springs,  more  machinery  has  to  be  supplied. 
In  the  case  of  the  tunnel  underneath  the  Severn  on  the  Great 
Western  Railway,  continuous  pumping  is  requisite  and  the  total 
minimum  quantity  of  water  raised  in  twenty-four  hours  is 
27,000,000  of  gallons,  and  the  power  provided  is  equal  to  rais- 
ing 66,000,000  of  gallons.  The  "  Mersey  "  tunnel  has  a  mini- 
mum thickness  of  rock  of  30  feet  over  the  crown,  and  pumping 
machinery  is  provided  for  raising  27,000,000  of  gallons  per 
day — half  of  which  quantity  is  about  the  present  inflow.  For 
ventilation  of  the  Mersey  tunnel — which  is  also  needed  in 
every  sub-aqueous  tunnel — fans  of  30  and  40  feet  diameter  are 
employed.  For  a  railway  passage,  a  tunnel  may  be  as  effica- 
cious as  a  bridge,  but  for  general  public  use  there  can  be  no 
comparison.  Take,  for  instance,  the  crossing  from  Queens  to 
Manhattan,  the  elevation  of  ground  on  the  Queens  side  is  12 
feet  above  high  water,  and  on  the  Manhattan  side  from  50 
to  70  feet.  The  tunnel  on  the  Queens  side  could  be  constructed 
as  far  as  the  edge  of  the  East  river  without  much  trouble 
through  the  alluvial  soil,  but  from  there  on  and  across  the 
Island  the  grade  would  have  to  fall  to  a  bottom  level  of  34 
feet  of  water,  and  in  the  western  channel  as  great  a  depth  as 
96  feet  of  water  would  be  met.  This  would  make  the  tunnel 
below  the  grade  of  the  proposed  bridge  at  its  western  end  about 
157  feet,  without  speaking  of  the  depth  over  the  crown  of  the 


3i 


tunnel  of  the  clear  headroom  necessary  between  the  roof  and 
the  floor.  A  lower  level  for  the  outlet  of  the  tunnel  would  have 
to  be  sought  by  increasing  the  length  of  the  tunnel.  Vertical 
lifts  would  have  to  be  used  to  bring  passengers  to  the  surface, 
as  well  as  vehicles — unless  sufficient  room  could  be  found  for 
slopes,  a  great  portion  of  which  would  have  to  be  constructed 
underground. 

It  is  not  believed  that  a  tunnel  or  tunnels  of  any  description 
will  accomplish  the  work  of  a  bridge  having  two  1 6-foot  car- 
riageways, an  independent  promenade  for  foot  passengers,  16 
feet  wide,  with  room  for  four  trolley  car  tracks  and  two  ele- 
vated railroad  tracks,  covering  in  all  about  105  feet  of  hori- 
zontal space.  To  do  this  with  tunnels  it  would  involve  the 
use  of  six  tunnels  16  feet  clear  width  and  two  tunnels  20  feet 
wide,  provided  at  a  much  greater  cost  and  giving  much  less 
comfort  to  those  who  use  them. 

Saml.  R.  Probasco, 

Chief  Engineer. 


32 


III. 

Replies  in  Favor  of  Tunnels. 

December  9,  1899. 

Hon.  Bird  S.  Coler, 

Comptroller, 

City  of  New  York: 

Sir — We  have  read  with  much  interest  the  statement  of  the 
case  for  East  river  bridges,  as  presented  by  Messrs.  Probasco, 
Martin  and  Buck. 

These  three  statements  present  the  advantages  of  the  magni- 
ficent bridges  proposed.  Each  draws  its  comparisons  between 
a  structure  which,  we  do  not  deny,  will  remain  to  posterity  as 
a  monument  to  its  builders;  and  a  tunnel,  of  which  neither 
writer  appears  in  the  least  degree  to  be  posted  as  to  modern 
construction,  conditions  or  operation.  We  do  not  question  the 
value  of  a  bridge  over  the  East  river,  nor  do  we  take  any  excep- 
tion to  the  work  which  these  gentlemen  have  designed,  but  we 
maintain  emphatically  that  the  bridges  planned  are  not  the 
most  economical  nor  the  most  advantageous  means  of  provid- 
ing for  the  needs  of  the  people  on  either  side  of  the  East  river. 

Wre  do  not  suppose  that  these  bridges  are  being  designed 
simply  as  "  things  of  beauty,"  but  that  the  need  of  conveniently 
transporting  the  traveling  public,  efficiently  and  rapidly,  is  the 
prime  cause  of  their  construction. 

No  bridge,  tunnel  or  other  route  of  travel  will  ever  again 
be  built  within  the  corporate  limits  of  this  city  which  will 
require  or  be  permitted  to  concentrate  and  congest  traffic,  as 
is  the  case  with  the  present  Brooklyn  Bridge.  There  is  plenty 
of  latitude  yet  left  to  increase  the  transportation  capacity  of 
that  thoroughfare.  On  heavy  travel  days  on  the  Brooklyn 
Bridge  there  are  transported  in  the  two  lines  of  cars  operated 
by  the  Bridge  and  the  Brooklyn  Rapid  Transit  Company  as 
many  as  400,000  people ;  yet  the  average  week  day  travel  does 
not  exceed  about  300,000  passengers  in  both  directions.  The 


33 


whole  object  of  new  bridges  is  to  relieve  this  crowded 
condition,  to  draw  off  from  the  existing  route  some  por- 
tion of  its  load,  and  to  create  new  routes  of  travel.  What 
value,  then,  is  it  to  multiply  tracks  on  one  bridge,  by  putting 
in  six  tracks  for  cars.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  these  gentlemen 
make  a  huge  "  virtue  of  necessity."  They  find  in  their  strain 
calculations  that  an  enormous  width  is  absolutely  necessary  to 
provide  for  lateral  stresses  due  to  wind  pressure  and  vibration 
on  these  very  great  spans,  and  that  it  is  perfectly  easy  to  put 
in  a  number  of  extra  tracks,  which  look  and  sound  well,  with- 
out adding  very  much  to  the  initial  costs.  They  very  rightly 
put  them  in,  and  work  backward  from  the  number  of  tracks 
to  calculate  the  needs  of  the  public,  instead  of  the  rational 
method  of  calculating  from  the  needs  of  the  public  what  provi- 
sion should  be  made  for  handling  them. 

The  travel  capacity  of  a  railroad  for  transportation  use  is 
controlled  entirely  by  its  capacity  in  the  busiest  hour.  With 
crowding  into  cars  and  making  people  stand  (Bridge  fashion), 
as  many  as  20,000  passengers  per  hour  may  be  conveyed,  but 
in  legitimate  manner  no  more  than  15,000  passengers  should 
be  handled  in  one  hour.  This  is,  as  we  before  stated,  equiva- 
lent to  110,000  per  day.  It  is  a  well-known  fact  that  about 
9  per  cent,  of  the  population  of  the  city  cross  the  East  river 
daily,  and  therefore  this  travel  capacity  for  a  single  double 
track  will  accommodate  a  population  tributary  to  any  bridge 
of  1,220,000  persons.  On  each  of  these  proposed  bridges, 
then,  accommodation  is  to  be  provided  for  tributary  population 
of  more  than  the  entire  1899  population  of  the  whole  of 
Greater  New  York. 

This  is  not  reasonable.  A  single  double  track  railroad  is 
ample  provision  for  the  traveling  public  at  any  one  point.  One 
of  these  new  bridges  is  almost  to  parallel  the  existing  Brooklyn 
Bridge,  and  its  especial  function  will  be  to  relieve  its  burden, 
which  is  very  right,  but  we  hardly  believe  it  will  do  so  to  any 
great  extent.  The  other  bridge,  crossing  Blackwell's  Island, 
is  to  extend  from  a  point  on  Second  avenue  to  an  entirely 


34 


unsettled  and  slightly  improved  portion  of  Long  Island  City. 
We  do  not  deny  that  the  construction  of  the  bridge  will  induce 
the  building  up  of  that  portion  of  Queens,  but  we  do  deny  the 
necessity  now  or  within  the  next  fifty  years  for  six  tracks  of 
railroad. 

Neither  bridge  project  provides  in  the  remotest  degree  for 
South  Brooklyn,  for  Hunter's  Point  or  Greenpoint.   The  state- 
ments for  the  bridges  take  out  of  the  case  the  existence  of  the 
ferries,  which  are  a  source  of  great  revenue  to  the  City.  As 
we  before  stated,  the  bulk  of  the  trucking  business  of  the  city 
is  a  river  front  business.    The  building  of  the  Brooklyn  Bridge 
has  not  stopped  the  trucking  over  Fulton  and  Catharine  Fer- 
ries.   No  heavy  truck  would  go  to  a  bridge  approach,  to  pull 
up  a  long  grade,  between  3  and  5  per  cent.,  when  they  can 
advantageously  take  a  ferry.    The  provisions  of  handsome 
roadways  on  these  bridges  is  simply  incidental  to  their 
construction,  and  in  no  sort  of  respect  a  reason  for  build- 
ing them.     Their  construction  will  not  save  the  vehicle 
any  money,  and  at  the  worst  case  not  over  ten  minutes 
actual  time.    If  roadways  in  addition  to  those  on  Brooklyn 
and  East  river  bridges  are  absolutely  necessary,  they  can 
economically  be  constructed  in  tunnel.    The  City  of  Glas- 
gow did  this  under  the  Clyde  with  entire  success,  and  the 
recently  opened  Blackwall  Tunnel,  under  the  Thames  (which 
is  purely  a  highway  for  wagons  and  pedestrians,  having  open 
approaches  with  elevator  service  for  wagons  and  passengers  at 
other  points),  has  evidently  not  been  examined  by  either  of 
these  gentlemen,  or  they  would  not  describe  it  as  either  damp, 
dark  or  objectionable.    The  Chicago  tunnels  at  Lasalle  and 
Clark  streets  have  been  entirely  taken  possession  of  by  the 
trolleys,  and  there  is  no  pretense,  apparently,  to  keep  them 
clean  or  to  watch  them,  and  they  are  built  so  near  the  bed  of 
the  river  that  it  is  usual  for  vessels  to  lie  aground  on  top  of 
them.    These  gentlemen  have  apparently  not  followed  in  any 
way  modern  methods  of  tunneling,  or  some  of  the  statements 
would  not  have  been  made  as  to  grades,  depths,  dampness,  and 


35 


so  forth.  The  Hudson  river  tunnel  cited  is  now  empty,  and 
the  seepage  in  4,000  feet  of  subaqueous  tunnel  is  not  sufficient 
to  fill  a  J^-inch  diameter  pipe.  The  statement  as  to  the  Severn 
tunnel  was  correct,  while  it  was  under  construction,  at  which 
time  the  writers  were  familiar  with  the  works.  At  that  time 
there  were  six  pumps  running.  The  tunnel  was  in  limestone 
rock,  and  the  subterranean  channel  for  the  entire  water  supply 
for  ten  miles'  radius  was  tapped  and  flowed  into  the  tunnel. 
This  was  under  land  and  not  under  water.  On  completion 
of  the  work  part  of  these  pumps  were  taken  away,  and  only 
one  pump  is  used  to  handle  the  influx.  Any  person  who  has 
examined  or  traveled  in  the  new  electrically  equipped  London 
tunnels  will  not  uphold  the  statements  made  concerning  them. 

The  question  of  elevator  service  is  a  perfectly  simple  propo- 
sition, and  would  readily  be  met  by  either  of  the  half  dozen 
elevator  builders  of  America  to-day.  One  of  the  latest  of  the 
London  deep  tunnels,  the  City  and  Waterloo  Railroad,  has 
demonstrated  what  can  be  accomplished  in  this  direction.  This 
line,  with  its  terminal  station  in  the  city,  is  in  daily  operation 
(to  the  complete  satisfaction  of  passengers)  underneath  the 
street,  in  the  square  in  front  of  the  Bank  of  England  and  Royal 
Exchange.  No  real  estate  is  used.  The  entire  square  is 
roofed  over  to  form  the  surface  of  the  street.  Below  is  an 
enormous  open  area,  forming  a  promenade  or  plaza,  with  stair- 
ways on  the  corners  of  the  sidewalks  of  the  five  intersecting 
streets.  In  the  centre  of  this  plaza  are  the  ticket  booths,  rail- 
ings and  elevators  to  the  deep  tunnels  of  the  City  and  Waterloo 
Railway.  If  London  can  do  this,  why  not  New  York  also? 
This  terminal  is  at  a  location  more  busy  than  any  single  spot 
in  New  York.  It  is  the  very  heart  and  centre  of  London's 
business.  The  City  and  Waterloo  Railway  pours,  all  the 
passengers  from  the  Southwestern  Railway  and  from  the  Sur- 
rey side  of  the  Thames,  under  that  river,  into  the  business  heart 
of  the  city.  Its  traffic  is  far  in  excess  of  any  which  will  accrue, 
for  many  years  to  come,  to  any  one  of  the  new  bridges.  The 
work  of  construction  was  carried  on  to  completion  without  for 


36 


a  day  interrupting  traffic  on  that  square.  This  railroad  passes 
below  the  Thames  with  no  more  cover  between  the  roof  of  the 
tunnel  and  the  water  in  the  river,  in  places,  than  five  feet.  No 
person  who  has  examined  this  work  will  call  it  damp  or  ill 
ventilated.  We  do  not  propose  to  quibble  over  the  details  of 
this  proposition.  Bridges  have  their  field  and  rightly  and 
properly  so.  The  present  case  is  not  one  for  sentiment;  it  is 
the  broad  question  of  rapid  and  efficient  facilities  for  trans- 
portation between  our  boroughs.  We  hold  that  no  thorough- 
fare is  needed  in  any  one  location  of  the  magnitude  of  these 
bridges.  That  the  construction  of  additional  bridges  for 
vehicular  traffic  is  not  necessary,  and  that  the  City  is  not  war- 
ranted in  expending  any  huge  sum  of  money  for  that  purpose, 
or  to  provide  for  bicycles  except  as  incidental  to  the  passenger 
transportation  problem.  That  one  double  track  railway  for 
street  service  is  all  that  is  demanded  or  desirable  for  any  single 
locality,  and  that  these  should  be  multiplied  in  as  many  local- 
ities as  possible,  so  as  to  distribute  business  and  build  up  the 
city  more  uniformly,  increasing  the  property  values  by  so 
doing. 

The  only  economical  manner  of  meeting"  this  case  is  bv 
tunnels  intersecting  all  possible  avenues  of  traffic  on  both  sides 
of  the  river,  and  not  by  use  of  a  single  terminal  station  on 
either  end. 

There  is  far  more  urgent  need  for  communication  between 
lower  Manhattan  and  South  Brooklyn  than  for  either  of  the 
bridges  planned.  The  Bridge  Department  has  acknowledged 
that  the  situation  is  not  a  feasible  one  for  a  bridge.  It  is 
eminently  practicable  for  tunneling.  The  statements  adverse 
to  tunnels  seem  to  be  purposely  misleading  in  certain  respects. 
We  no  longer  figure  upon  out-of-date  methods  of  construction, 
any  more  than  the  bridge  engineer  considers  any  other  material 
than  steel  for  bridge  construction.  We  no  longer  propose  to 
use  coal-burning  steam  locomotive  engines  as  our  motive 
power,  and  consequently  we  do  not  require  rotary  fans  for 
drawing  off  that  sulphurous  smoke.    The  costs  of  construction 


37 


can  be  certainly  and  exactly  calculated,  and  in  every  way  as 
closely,  and  usually  more  so,  than  the  estimates  for  long-span 
bridges.  These  loose  statements  on  either  side  are  irrelevant. 
The  one  point  to  keep  in  view  is  to  produce  the  greatest  benefit 
to  the  greatest  number,  at  the  least  outlay ;  and  in  the  particular 
case  of  the  East  river  transportation  problem,  the  case  can  be 
proved  in  favor  of  many  tunnels,  and  their  efficiency  demon- 
strated from  the  parallel  case  of  recent  developments  in  the  one 
city  greater  in  size  than  our  greater  City  of  New  York. 

Yours  respectfully, 

Jacobs  &  Davies. 


38 


New  York,  9th  December,  1899. 

The  Hon.  Bird  S.  Coler, 

Comptroller, 

City  of  New  York  : 

Sir — I  have  read  the  reports  of  Messrs.  Probasco,  Buck  and 
Martin  that  you  have  sent  me. 

The  one  argument  in  common  which  they  all  advance  is 
that  of  the  number  of  tunnels  (eight  in  number)  required  to 
do  the  work  of  one  bridge.  Taking  the  new  East  River  Bridge 
as  a  type,  that  may  be  so ;  and  the  fact  that  it  is  so  is  one  of  the 
principal  reasons  for  avoiding  bridges.  If,  by  some  convul- 
sion of  nature,  the  East  river  should  be  filled  up,  and  the  two 
boroughs  of  Manhattan  and  Brooklyn  should  thereby  find 
themselves  separated  by  a  strip  of  land,  would  the  City 
authorities  permit  the  erection  of  impassable  barriers  extending 
for  a  mile,  and  then  at  such  intervals  lay  out  very  wide  streets 
filled  with  a  number  of  railroad  tracks  and  carriageways,  or 
would  they  simply  extend  each  street,  comparatively  narrower, 
and,  consequently,  with  a  less  carrying  capacity  than  the  bigger 
thoroughfare,  and  so  make  each  street  connect  with  the  one 
opposite  in  the  other  borough?  The  answer  to  this  question 
is  obvious. 

The  bridge  has,  of  necessity,  very  expensive  land  terminals 
and  foundations  which  are  substantially  independent  of  the 
cost  of  the  structure.  It  is,  therefore,  economical  to  build  a 
bridge  as  large  as  possible,  involving,  in  practice,  a  congestion 
of  tra^l  at  both  ends.  Tunnels,  on  the  other  hand,  are  com- 
paratively small,  and  need  not  be  built  more  in  number  than 
two  at  a  place.  The  eight  tunnels  required  to  compensate  for 
the  new  East  River  Bridge  could,  therefore,  be  built  two  each 
in  four  different  places,  and  serve  thereby  to  distribute  the 
traffic  much  more  evenly  and  conveniently  and  according  to 
the  rational  method  which  would  be  adopted  if  the  river  did 
not  exist.  It  is  this  one  feature  which  alone  makes  the  tunnel 
plan  better  than  that  of  the  bridge. 


39 


Of  specific  objections  beyond  this  one  point  in  common  Mr. 
Martin  urges  none.  Messrs.  Buck  and  Probasco  have  sub- 
mitted several,  but  which — all  without  exception — go  to  show 
that  they  have  in  their  own  minds  the  picture  of  an  old-fash- 
ioned, leaky,  damp,  disagreeable  masonry  structure. 

Such  are  the  Severn,  the  Mersey  and  the  London  under- 
ground in  England ;  the  Fourth  Avenue  tunnel  in  New  York, 
and  the  Chicago  River  tunnels,  Chicago — all  of  which,  except 
the  last,  are  given  over  to  the  use  of  soft  coal-burning  locomo- 
tives at  frequent  intervals.  Such  structures,  used  as  they  are, 
are  merely  examples  of  "  what  not  to  do,"  and  are  according 
to  a  design  that  no  intelligent  engineer  would  duplicate  to-day. 

The  modern  tunnel  is  a  metal-cased,  absolutely  water-tight 
structure,  lined  with  enameled  bricks,  and  therefore  clean  and 
sightly,  and,  with  electricity  or  compressed  air  as  the  motive 
power,  possesses  an  atmosphere  which  will,  all  things  consid- 
ered, average  better  than  that  on  a  high  bridge. 

Mr.  Buck  states  that  a  tunnel  beneath  the  East  river  would 
be  experimental  in  character,  and  with  a  cost  not  susceptible 
of  determination.  His  time  has  been  so  completely  taken  up 
in  his  excellent  work  for  the  great  bridges  across  the  East  river 
that  it  has  escaped  his  attention  that  a  tunnel  already  exists 
under  the  East  river  which  cost  considerably  less  than  $500,- 
000.  There  is  nothing,  therefore,  experimental  in  the  idea, 
and  the  cost  of  such  construction  can  be  foretold  and  contracted 
for  as  readily  as  the  foundations  of  his  own  bridge. 

Messrs.  Buck  and  Probasco  argue  as  to  the  relative  advan- 
tages of  bridge  and  tunnel  profiles.  To  simply  state  my  own 
opinion  in  contradiction,  which  I  do,  is  not  argument.  Such 
difference  of  opinion  indicates  very  clearly  the  necessity  for 
comparative  study  and  report,  as  you  have  advised.  If  this 
whole  subject  were  so  studied,  it  would  be  seen,  I  am  confident, 
that  tunnels  would  possess  more  favorable  gradients  and  give 
greater  convenience  to  the  people  than  the  proposed  bridges. 

Respectfully  yours, 

Wm.  Barclay  Parsons. 


The  East  River  Gas  Tunne 


Cross  Section  showing  Tunnels  at  Blackfriars 
Bridge  and  Queen  Victoria  Street,  London* 


London  Chatham  &  Dover  Ry 


T 


T-^rty,,,       ,  T,~  r-T-r^j 

Queen  Victoria  St 


v  B  ft  ii  t 


Gas  Main 


Water 


i  ♦ 


Et.Wirej 


Mcrropoli  ran 


ground  Ry 


Main  Sewer 


City  8,  Waterloo  Ry 


Map  showing  Locations  of  Bridges  and 
Proposed  Tunnels, 


T 


■  '.'  '  w  •  i  v  iff  t  V 

A'' 


4- 


t 
\ 


